Err, we're not talking about your large family though are we? Simplistic homely comparisons don't really work, do they? Your family wants to buy landmines? Strewth, you certainly do not have good relations with your neighbours but I guess its one way to stop people parking right in front of your driveway. But if that's important to you, then who am I to say that this is not valid current fiscal year expenditure. Same as for cutting costs in the UK. The UK is not some family household budget. Macro-economics are not the same as micro / family ones. The only places that such comparisons are made are the mail and the express. More fool you for accepting them at face value. (Maybe you're right, in your head its all so very simple. Bliss.)Getting back to the main point, all governments spend on both aid and arms. There is poverty and injustice in the UK and the US - but still lots of arms spending. There is lots of arms spending in the middle east, but still poverty and injustice. African countries receive millions in aid, often gladly given, and then their governments manage to spend money on private and military jets. But according to your argument, its better to let the poor in all these countries suffer until their governments have got their priorities right. You want to play god with the lives of their poor to make a point about your views of unjustified expenditure. So in less facetious response, no, it is not simple. If it were simple the answers would be both easy and fair. Your answers are one-sided and hypocritical. And mean.
Alan Clark ● 5305d